نشریه پژوهش های نوین حقوق اداری
پیاپی 2 (بهار 1399)

Iran's Labor Law (1990) provides for Dispute Settlement bodies at two levels: the recognition Board and the Dispute Settlement Board. According to Article 157 of the Labor Code, these boards are competent to deal with any individual dispute between the worker and the employer or trainee arising out of the enforcement of labor law and other labor regulations, apprenticeship contracts, workplace agreements, or collective labor agreements. Subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10 of the Law on the Organization and Procedure of the Administrative Justice Court (AJC), certain decisions and judgments of the Labor’s Dispute Settlement bodies may be appealed in the Branches of the AJC. The rules and procedures for dealing with these matters are set out in Article 63 of the said Act. There are some ambiguities and challenges to both the jurisdiction and the procedure of the AJC concerning judicial review of decisions of the Labor’s Dispute Settlement Authorities, in which the answer to these ambiguities can be found in the Court's jurisprudence. Accordingly, in this descriptive-analytical method, this article attempts to study the jurisdiction and procedure of the AJC in judicial review of decisions of the Labor’s Dispute Settlement Bodies concerning the jurisprudence of the AJC.

Handling lawsuits regarding administrative contracts is important, due to specialization and special administrative requirements. Therefore, in many countries, judicial review of these contracts has been entrusted to a special judicial authority. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Court of Administrative Justice is envisaged as the judicial authority in charge of administrative matters, but the Court has deny itself jurisdiction over litigation concerning administrative contracts. In the present study, with a descriptive-analytical method, after criticizing the existing judicial procedure and showing the lack of a valid legal and legal basis for its arguments, by analyzing the arguments of the proponents and opponents of the jurisdiction of the court and analyzing the elements and types of administrative, civil and criminal lawsuits, we concluded that not only is it legally possible for the Court of Administrative Justice to accept the general jurisdiction in handling lawsuits regarding administrative contracts, but it can be argued that the procedure is inconsistent with the relevant laws.

One of the important issues in the field of public law and political jurisprudence is the clarification of the scope of the ruling of the government and the justification for its issuance.based on the studies,it seems that the issuance of the rulling of the government as a fundamental solution to solving emerging political and social problems and issues is in the hands of a comprehensive ruler of the conditions.in various circumstances,based on the requirements of society and in line with the administration of the country,a decision is appropriate to take.This decision,of course,needs to be justified.public interest as the common benefit of all individuals as members of society is the same as the basis for the issuance of a rulling of the government on its orbit and justified.Therefore,it is impossible or necessary to make a rulling of a government based on the requirements of the day of society and the real interest of each member to the limited scopeKey words:government decree,public interest,the expediency of the government,mobait, The absolute fagihs leadership theory.

Organizing the relationship between public order and freedom of association is one of the most challenging discourses on administrative law. Because the unconditional protection of public order by the government makes it possible for citizens to abuse and unconditionally exercise the freedom of assembly and march, there is a possibility of chaos. Therefore, in this article, an attempt has been made to examine the legal system governing the issue and to examine the approach of the Court of Administrative Justice of Iran. How the government and public officials (administrative police) can protect the public order by preventing a peaceful, non-criminal rally from violent demonstrations, riots and even uprisings against the government is a major issue. The results of the research show that the Court of Administrative Justice in organizing the relationship between public order and freedom of association not only does not have a clear and definite approach, but also has a paradoxical and contradictory approach. For example, the General Assembly of the Court of Administrative Justice considered the government's decision to designate places for rallies to restrict freedom of assembly, but on the contrary, the need to obtain a permit to march, despite the fact that Article 27 of the Constitution includes restrictions on Freedom of assembly is not mentioned, it does not limit the freedom of assembly.

Following the interpretation of the Guardian Council on the principle of 170 of the Constitution in 1383, due to the overcoming of verbal interpretation in the Council, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Justice Court became one of the points of the Islamic Parliament and the Guardian Council. Due to Parliament's insistence on some of its approvals, the Expediency Council also engaged in this dispute that the Assembly also adopted the interstitial decisions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of the Guardian Council approach to the jurisdiction of the Court and the options of pre-assembly and assembly in the face of the mentioned approach. It should be noted that despite researches done about the limits of the jurisdictions of the Administrative Justice Court, no independent research has been done on this subject. This essay, with a descriptive-analytic method, seeks to identify and evaluate the above options. Based on the findings of this study, the generalization of the Administrative Justice Court to all administrative disputes, although desirable, but it requires constitutional amendment, and in the current situation it may not be expedient. In this situation, with the approval of the Parliament and the approval of the Assembly, deviating from the approach of the Guardian Council and generalizing the jurisdiction of the Administrative Justice Court to the necessary cases enumerated in this article, it seems a more justified option.

The interpretive competence of judges has always been a point of conflict. Its advocates regard it as an essential and efficient institution contributing to dynamism of laws, which can bring the laws closer to political and legal requirements in keeping with social change. Its critics, however, reject it claiming it can undermine the rule of law, increase the danger of abuse and corruption, and infringe upon basic rights. Regardless of these criticisms, interpretation of law is an inseparable part of legal resources, procedure, and adaption of laws to actual claims. Therefore, the concern and focus of legal discussions must be on how to supervise and control this legal institution, rather than reject it. In the first step, it must be ensured that principles of accountability and rule of law are observed, and then a balance must be struck between the interpretation made by judges and the spirit of law, legal principles, and human and citizenship rights. The realization of this aspiration is subject to a two-stage solution. Stage one: familiarity with the special, fluid nature of judicial affairs, and admission of its fundamental difference from execution of laws by law enforcement institutions. Stage two: recognition of interpretive competence as a special legal institution, and envision of control, priori, and posteriori mechanisms based on recently developed methods of supervision in administrative law, such as soft law and network supervision. In and of itself,

Arbitration is one of the best ways to resolve disputes because it has a timely effect and does not involve litigation costs and adjournment. But when it comes to arbitration, there is a big difference between a government lawsuit and a lawsuit. There are restrictions on the constitution and ordinary laws in government lawsuits, but this is not strictly forbidden unless the authorities have been appointed by law to deal with disputes. In this research, an attempt has been made to examine Article 139 from a new perspective, and to achieve this goal, the library method has been used with the approach of practical study of the issue in the judicial procedure, and as a result, the need to remove Article 139 of the Constitution It is possible to create a major obstacle in the contracts as well as to accept the arbitration, except in cases where there is a special authority in the proceedings.